The statement put out by Pew on herring appeared to describe a different meeting. They did not discuss the change in allocation, which they hope to reverse through lobbying NMFS to overturn the council action.
Peter Baker, a spokesperson for Pew on herring, said ‘the final decision on 2010-12 catch levels will be made by NMFS, using the best available science, over the next few months.’
‘The herring industry lawyers and lobbyists pushed the council to ignore the scientific recommendations, but the council stood strong,’ said Baker. ‘Using science-based management is the correct course of action. While these cuts will provide a short-term economic challenge, they will allow the best chance of maintaining healthy herring populations for the short-, medium- and long-term.’
The fact is the council upped the allocations initially recommended by 16,000 tons. The idea of overall maintaining reduced catch levels was neither controversial nor contested. The view of the council standing strong against lobbyists and a rapacious industry is a fantasy useful to Pew. All sides, industry and scientists, agree on the need for reduced harvests. SEAFOOD.COM NEWS by John Sackton – Newport, RI – Nov 18, 2009 – The first day of the New England regional management council was taken up with herring.
The state of the discussions over herring in New England is a little like the troubles in Northern Ireland, said one herring company executive – the two sides have been fighting for so long they have almost forgotten what the original conflict was about.
The basic facts of the fishery are these: herring is not overfished, and the biomass is near long term targets, according to the Northeast Fisheries Science center.
In September, the scientific committee had advised shaving the 145,000 metric ton catch limit to 90,000 metric tons, not because of overfishing Ñ none is known to be occurring Ñ but because a troubling pattern deep in the analysis of data suggests something as yet undefined might be amiss in the biomass of the stock.
In a major victory for herring operators, the council voted to use the average catch levels of the past three years as the most reliable method to determine the allowable biological catch. This figure turned out to be 106,000 tons. After deductions for Canadian catches, and scientific uncertainty, it will result in a TAC for the major areas of 26,546 tons inshore in area 1A, 22,146 in area 2, and 38,146 in area 3 – the offshore sector.
The total level of ABC was originally projected at 90,000 tons in September, based on last year’s fishing alone – but the herring committee on the council met with the SSC and came up with the higher number of 106,000 consistent with the SSC’s data, if not with their initial advice.
None of the increase applied to the inshore fishery. There are some declines in recruitment, and there has been a woeful lack of money for surveys and stock assessment, as a result the scientific uncertainty about herring is very high.
The area of most concern is the inshore stock, which is used by the smaller boat fisheries in Maine, and is a primary source of lobster bait. The inshore stocks also support the sole remaining sardine cannery in Maine.
Catches in the inshore area have been cut almost by 50% in recent years, and the three year plan would set fishing levels of about 26,000 tons in the inshore area. This compares to catches of 45,000 to 50,000 tons in recent years.
The reason for the war is that Pew, along with some inshore river herring fishermen, have been arguing that herring should essentially not be fished at all because it is a forage fish, and therefore should be reserved within the ecosystem for those other fish that eat it, such as cod etc.
The problem is that the science does not support the position. There has been a herring fishery in Maine for more than a hundred years, while stocks in New England, such as haddock have grown back to historic highs, and all signs point to growth of cod stocks as well.
The real target seems to be the 17 or so large vessels that operate on offshore herring, and come inshore only under strict time and area permissions. These are boats around 140 to 150 feet, usually operating as pair trawlers, with big RSW systems, who can make the trip from Georges Bank back to plants from Maine to New Jersey. They are targets because of their size, the volume of their catches, and the fact that since they are midwater trawlers, they can fish for herring in groundfish closed areas so long as they have observers.
The irony is that the result of efforts by Pew to curtail herring fishing have fallen mainly on the smaller inshore fishermen and lobstermen in Maine. Most of the proposed changes in monitoring rules will impact purse seiners more than trawlers.
The data that is available shows the herring trawl fishery to have the lowest by-catch of any fishery in New England. This is fully corroborated by observers.
The statement put out by Pew on herring appeared to describe a different meeting. They did not discuss the change in allocation, which they hope to reverse through lobbying NMFS to overturn the council action.
Peter Baker, a spokesperson for Pew on herring, said ‘the final decision on 2010-12 catch levels will be made by NMFS, using the best available science, over the next few months.’
‘The herring industry lawyers and lobbyists pushed the council to ignore the scientific recommendations, but the council stood strong,’ said Baker. ‘Using science-based management is the correct course of action. While these cuts will provide a short-term economic challenge, they will allow the best chance of maintaining healthy herring populations for the short-, medium- and long-term.’
The fact is the council upped the allocations initially recommended by 16,000 tons. The idea of overall maintaining reduced catch levels was neither controversial nor contested. The view of the council standing strong against lobbyists and a rapacious industry is a fantasy useful to Pew. All sides, industry and scientists, agree on the need for reduced harvests.
The next phase of the controversy over herring is likely to revolve around Amendment 5, the next herring plan, which is still in the development process. At this meeting, a new objective to protect the spawning stock was added to the mix of plan considerations.
The upshot is that next year will be difficult, with reduced availability of bait and higher costs for Maine lobstermen, and also reductions in the availability of sardines for the remaining cannery. All sides recognize these difficulties that are the results of a number of factors mostly based on a few years of poor recruitment. But the big boats have been the whipping boy for this campaign. Small boat fishermen just don’t like to see them off their grounds, no matter how careful they are to stay within the mandated management measures.
John Sackton, Editor And Publisher
Seafood.com News 1-781-861-1441
Email comments to jsackton@seafood.com
Source: Seafood.com News